Surge in 'DIY' justice sparks guidelines for lawyers

[goodatresearch]

I think almost anyone, newly qualified or not, on £18,000 (or less) a year would call £25,000 (+39%) 'vastly more'. Although I don't doubt that lawyers wouldn't in relation to their own salary.

 

But the real issue was that in my experience we get the referenced unqualified (and incompetent and/or totally uncaring) lawyers at £120+ an hour.

 

What's this 39% your referring to?

[Ganymede]

I think almost anyone, newly qualified or not, on £18,000 (or less) a year would call £25,000 (+39%) 'vastly more'. Although I don't doubt that lawyers wouldn't in relation to their own salary.

 

But the real issue was that in my experience we get the referenced unqualified (and incompetent and/or totally uncaring) lawyers at £120+ an hour.

 

You're missing the point.

[tobyjugg2]

Any way £120 per hour isn't a lot if you look at how much some tradesmen charge per hour. Iv just a few quotes for a handyman and the average is £150 per hour. i doubt if they have studied A levels, 3 years to study for a degree, 1- 2 years. to study for the LPC, professional skills course etcetera. Anyway some solicitors now charge fixed fees.

 

Unskilled tradesman £150 per hour.!!!

Post an advert here and you will have thousands of people offering to do your unskilled handyman work perhaps as little as £75 an hour (sic).

 

What planet are you on?

(Planet lawyer/investment banker it would seem - particularly as you apparently can't do basic maths - 39% rounded)

 

 

and I don't doubt you are referring to the £150 first hour emergency call out for skilled and registered plumbers or electricians, which is hardly a reasonable comparison to a £120+ standard hourly rate, sometime during office hours when you get around to it, for adding a name and address to a template from word.

 

.. else you could perhaps do it yourself as we are having to do to get a job done - let alone competently.

[goodatresearch]

If you can't win an argument just be rude.

 

Youve not explained the 39% at all. Are you saying a solicitor gets a 39% uplift on their salary?

 

Anyway you obviously have some sort of hatred for the legal profession hense your rude and insulting attitude. Your ignorant of what solicitors do and answering any more of your ranting posts is pointless. Will be ignoring you from now on, I come on here to help people.

 

Last comment though, your not adding anything to the discusion at all, as Gandymede said, your missing point.

[AndyOrch]

Lets keep this civil chaps......

[spalding78]

Isn't it obvious that 39% is the difference between £18000 and £25000? Good at research, eh?

[goodatresearch]

I really can't see how this thread can help or inform anyone when its turned in to people coming out with lazy cliches or stereotypes about the legal profession and snide personal attacks against other posters. Remember a lot of posters that come to CAG are probably legally qualified and provide good free advice and others are very vulnerable and desperately need help. Should we really put people off posting.

 

If someone truly believes theyve been treated badly by a law firm, then they can start a thread on CAG to receive help. That's what its for, consumer help.

 

 

Isn't it obvious that 39 is the difference between £18000 and £25000? Good at research, eh?

[tobyjugg2]

I really can't see how this thread can help or inform anyone when its turned in to people coming out with lazy cliches or stereotypes about the legal profession and snide personal attacks against other posters.

 

Absolutely. Physician heal thyself, although I do note you qualify your protection only to lawyers.

(£150 unskilled handymen indeed!)

 

Yes I have had exclusively bad experiences in the very few interactions I have had with lawyers and I can only honestly relate to my own experiences without relying on hearsay.

If an emergency plumber had done as bad a job as those lawyers I experienced i would not have paid them, but of course that isn't a viable option with lawyers whatever crap they deliver.

If you are a lawyer, which I am doubting, then I am sure you would realise just how any complaints against lawyers go - worse than pointless.

 

But referencing some hearsay, it does seem clear that there do appear to be a few lawyers here who do offer what appears to be excellent advice out of the goodness of their hearts, so I can judge from that that there are at least a few conscientious lawyers despite me never experiencing one.

 

So I would say to you stop trying to justify your position by denigrating others. Justification by detailing your worth and value would go down far better.

 

 

Isn't it obvious that 39% is the difference between £18000 and £25000? Good at research, eh?

I wasn't going to tell him. It seemed to me that the simple meaning was blatantly obvious to anyone with a far lesser education than he claims.

"I think almost anyone, newly qualified or not, on £18,000 (or less) a year would call £25,000 (+39%) 'vastly more'."

[determindator]

I've learnt a lot from the conversation exchanges on this thread.

[tobyjugg2]

I'm not sure if I'm for or against the reduction in legal aid.

 

Like any person I consider reasonable, I think that legal aid should be available to all,

but it also seems to me that the runaway costs of what would seem to be too often incompetent and uncaring lawyers who fester on the guaranteed income whatever their ability or performance, too often effectively paid for by tax and/or the hidden tax of increased premiums to everyone just cannot go on.

[goodatresearch]

The £150 per hour was a typo obviously. Meant per day. Perhaps a better comparison would be an accountancy firm. I know someone who qualified in 2013 and his firm charged between £125-£150 per hour for his services. Is that normal, no idea. Is £120 usual for a solicitors firm, yes it is. We live in a free market economy. However many solicitors now offer fixed fees. I'm currently paying a firm

£2, 500 for probate and a house sale and that included VAT and disbursements. I don't think that's bad and I'm getting an excellent service. Very quick and updating me 1- 2 times a week. Always answer my emails within a few hours. I'm very pleased. Actually paying the estate agent more.

 

My qualifications? Think what you like. I know what my qualifications are and if certain posters on this thread want to call me a liar and want to insult me. So be it

 

 

 

 

I stand by post #32. Can we all now try and be civil and stick to the thread.

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely. Physician heal thyself, although I do note you qualify your protection only to lawyers.

(£150 unskilled handymen indeed!)

 

Yes I have had exclusively bad experiences in the very few interactions I have had with lawyers and I can only honestly relate to my own experiences without relying on hearsay.

If an emergency plumber had done as bad a job as those lawyers I experienced i would not have paid them, but of course that isn't a viable option with lawyers whatever crap they deliver.

If you are a lawyer, which I am doubting, then I am sure you would realise just how any complaints against lawyers go - worse than pointless.

 

But referencing some hearsay, it does seem clear that there do appear to be a few lawyers here who do offer what appears to be excellent advice out of the goodness of their hearts, so I can judge from that that there are at least a few conscientious lawyers despite me never experiencing one.

 

So I would say to you stop trying to justify your position by denigrating others. Justification by detailing your worth and value would go down far better.

 

 

 

I wasn't going to tell him. It seemed to me that the simple meaning was blatantly obvious to anyone with a far lesser education than he claims.

"I think almost anyone, newly qualified or not, on £18,000 (or less) a year would call £25,000 (+39%) 'vastly more'."

[goodatresearch]

I've learnt a lot from the conversation exchanges on this thread.

 

Note that you are a long time poster. Sorry if this thread has turned it to what it has, suppose you've seen this happen before.

 

Not all people want to litigate themselves, find it far to daunting. Others do very well diy and good look to them.

 

What about the others? The cuts to legal aid are hurting some people greatly. Take family cases, for example contact issues. Shouldn't the government be thinking differently in that its better for the child/children see both parents and in turn this beneficial for society as a whole. For some, mainly fathers, they can't afford to pay a solicitor, the whole situation is just wrong.

 

 

Now the government seems to be turning this into "its all the greedy law firms fault innit" and people are falling for it. But how much did the average law firm make out of legal aid? Can the government legally make solicitors/barristers give their services free? I doubt it.

 

Also I don't know about barristers, but many solicitors firms do offer free hourly consultations. Although these free sessions are aimed at securing clients, perhaps this could be expanded to pointing someone in the right direction to do it themselves. After all, peoples financial situations change and if they've previously had good free advice they may use the firm for something else on a paying basis. I suppose ad access to justice is eroded further, we will see.

[tobyjugg2]

Now the government seems to be turning this into "its all the greedy law firms fault innit" and people are falling for it. But how much did the average law firm make out of legal aid? Can the government legally make solicitors/barristers give their services free? I doubt it.

 

I don't believe the government have turned this into 'greedy lawyers', the people have seen enough, and had enough, to make up their own minds.

 

and of course the government could make it a requirement for law firms to give a percentage of their time, even the SRA has requirements which must be met.

How could you not know that?

 

Surely A far better approach would be in formally simplifying and documenting legal processes so that many straight-forward things could be dealt with without lawyers, just as CAG does here so well with its templates?

[Ganymede]

Forcing people to work for free?!

 

I thought slavery was abolished.

[goodatresearch]

Site team - when are you going to do something about these nasty personal insults by some Posters. I have the unaltered post #38 in my mail box and basically its disgusting. I've also been accused of lying about my qualifications by the same poster. Not happy at all.

[honeybee13]

goodatresearch, if you want the site team to look at a particular post, you need to report it using the black triangle at the bottom of the relevant post.

 

HB

[tobyjugg2]

Forcing people to work for free?!

 

I thought slavery was abolished.

 

LOL

Of course they wont be working for free, it would more likely be a requirement for them to give a little in return for access to the lucrative legal aid payments, and/or so that their pressure (err self regulatory) group would use it for leverage in saying what a good bunch they are.

[pmailkeey]

A surge in the number of people representing themselves in court has prompted legal organisations to draft guidelines for lawyers who come up against people who find themselves in court without legal representation.

 

The guidelines have been developed by the Bar Council, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) and the Law Society in response to the rising numbers of people representing themselves in court without a lawyer as a result of cuts to legal aid, the increase in the small-claims limit and the introduction of employment tribunal fees.

 

The practical guidelines are relevant to the civil and family courts and tribunals where there has been an influx of people who cannot afford to instruct a lawyer, have not been able to obtain free legal advice and often have no alternative other than to embark on 'do it yourself' justice.

 

The guidelines discuss how far lawyers can help unrepresented people without this conflicting with their duties to their own clients. Lawyers are advised to communicate clearly and avoid technical language or legal jargon, or to explain jargon to the unrepresented party where it cannot be avoided.

 

 

The guidelines are available to download below.

 

• Litigants in person: guidelines for lawyers (PDF 387kb)
  
• Litigants in person – guidelines for lawyers: Notes for litigants in person (PDF 116 kb)
  
• Litigants in person – guidelines for lawyers: Notes for clients (PDF 117 kb)
  
• A selection of relevant cases: June 2015 (PDF 109kb)
  

 

Good.

[pmailkeey]

Michael, enormous changes are coming in the justice system which ought to make things much fairer for everyone - including the judges. They are fed up with dealing with so many LIPs when the adversarial system is not suited to it.Lord Justice Thomas, interviewed today by Joshua Rosenberg on Law in Action (BBC Radio 4, available online and repeated Thursday 25 June at 8.00 pm) said some truly radical things which are backed by other top judges. Michael Gove says he will be taking these up.

 

Criminal judge 'advised' me to get legal representation or at least legal advice. I complained to the court about giving such legal advice as they're not supposed to. Had the advice been good, I probably wouldn't have complained.

 

UK lawyers are the **** of the earth.

[pmailkeey]

Makes me laugh, wealthy lawyers indeed. My old firm paid newly qualified lawyers £18,000 even when that lawyer had spent many years before their training contract actually doing the job. Lawyers aren't voluntary workers, they have bills like everyone else. Access to justice has been eroded by the government and nobody else and now they want to pass the buck.

 

Work ? Do lawyers do 'work' ?

 

They should only be paid by results, not 'work'.

[pmailkeey]

what's this 39% your referring to?

 

lol !

[pmailkeey]

If you can't win an argument just be rude.

 

Youve not explained the 39% at all. Are you saying a solicitor gets a 39% uplift on their salary?

 

Anyway you obviously have some sort of hatred for the legal profession hense your rude and insulting attitude. Your ignorant of what solicitors do and answering any more of your ranting posts is pointless. Will be ignoring you from now on, I come on here to help people.

 

Last comment though, your not adding anything to the discusion at all, as Gandymede said, your missing point.

 

Since when is honesty being rude ?

We know what solicitors do - rip people off

Judging by the errors in your post, your computer screen will be covered in Tipp-Ex.

I wouldn't be surprised if your calculator was covered in it as well.

[pmailkeey]

Isn't it obvious that 39% is the difference between £18000 and £25000? Good at research, eh?

 

Classy stuff innit.

 

Good at research = ask someone else ! )))

[pmailkeey]

I really can't see how this thread can help or inform anyone when its turned in to people coming out with lazy cliches or stereotypes about the legal profession and snide personal attacks against other posters. Remember a lot of posters that come to CAG are probably legally qualified and provide good free advice and others are very vulnerable and desperately need help. Should we really put people off posting.

 

If someone truly believes theyve been treated badly by a law firm, then they can start a thread on CAG to receive help. That's what its for, consumer help.

 

I guess that's what the legally qualified claim - that they're vulnerable and desperately need help.

 

Ok then, what's the best way to deal with all these rogue lawyers ? You'd thing the'd do something themselves about all the bad ones but maybe they are all bad.

 

Anyway, if there are any good ones that would like to help me, I now insist on £10k up front - refunded on satisfactory 'work'. It's the only way.

[pmailkeey]

Site team - when are you going to do something about these nasty personal insults by some Posters. I have the unaltered post #38 in my mail box and basically its disgusting. I've also been accused of lying about my qualifications by the same poster. Not happy at all.

 

Simple answer is to stop upsetting people. Listen to what they have to say and deal with your own (in)actions.